JK 

304 

.M3 






V-/ 


^ I 


•n- 0^ ' 


•'' ■ ’ ' “ “ >° - i-,- V "'' • V . °-o, 


O N O 




y •% '“. 


» 


« « 


L f e 






o V 




". 6^ 
* y 


0^ o 

^ ^.- * 


A 


\ 


n 


O H 0 


,0 ^'' * 


\ ‘*--’ /*' '• 

vv 


o N 0 


& i 1 


•4^ / 

-^w/%: v^'- : 

<r. ‘-r.s* 0^ O '»..* A 

% “-f. o'" .-^ 

^ T-k ^ ^ 

“ 0^ 

• r^ * 




0 N C - 


0 c 





ft ^ 

A> 


<► 





O V 


^ P>v 

I? ^ 


»p 




V ^ >" 

V So aP "IS®" ^ V" 


• « 


o^ *' o „ o ^ 


c.'i'V o 

•p Vp^ o 


% .S 

% / 


* ■4’^ 


.‘'•, -^o 


O . ^o . 4 A 




»'■'*-» o 


-r O ^L. 

•p < N ^ ’:: 5 vSa\\ 

...- o'^ V‘‘.o 

aP ’‘1,‘ce' ^ v^ So aP 


’,-V 


'% " 






o N e ^ Sf> 


O, ''o * ^ A 


ft • ^ -0 -_^ 

0°"^ 

^ ’T-k ^ ^ ^ ^d[//y^ -P 

• ^ o' • " O V 


A.^ ' 


V '' 'ftp 

■4^ 


o 

“ cL^ Sn 




So 


O" •'■'*'» 
c^ t 


O' 


4 O. 

^ in 

<1^ o 

' " ' * * o . 0 ” ,0 

:^m\ \cp : 


» 4°-ni. 

* 


•I O. 

XA f<v 


O H 0 ' a\J **/-!* 

• ^ ^ .’rA^f?/), - 'ji,. A »‘ 


ft ft 


«/• 

CV >i> ^, 

S^ o « o ’ 


m. 


i\%l. 


* >////^ ^xxx^ - 

> Si- 'V ^ 

o> 'o • A A 

»*•'*-» A? A*^^ 0 ® " ® -» 

e=A%^ O S™ 

^nl//j/^^ 4 4.N V 


O 'o , 4 '» A 


-0^0 

C _ ^ ^ 


So 


O N O 


\0 Vj 

i» ^ * 

’ / V ‘‘ 


. 0 ' A*°^ 


V 


> 




C * ae/r??^ "* '-? 4^ • 

-^b v^ ' 

°" ‘ 

o^ *.».’ V ‘..^ 

% A v'i'a'. ^ 

• 'XT' * 

- 'f? -m^/ZA-. v^ 






«* S^ A 




































' A 

p, ^ v- 


, ,, ^ 

c A 

o 

•- .< 5 ' .‘«<^^'. •%. ^'^i/h\ u ' 

<V Yy 

' V fP’^‘i‘^% °o .y.’■j^% fP'^.i'-;^-. °o .,v 


\0 vV 

^ '» ^ * 

• 0 ^ 

... ""' 


■> 
V 



O. ^O , , 


■» < N 























THE CONSTITUTION 

AND OUR 

INSULAR POSSESSIONS 


‘^What are these argumeuts? They are the 
arguments that kings have made for ensliiving the 
people in all ages of the world. You will find that 
all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of 
this class; they always bestrode the necks of the 
people, not that they wanted to do it, but because 
the people were better oft* for being ridden.” 

—Abraham Lincoln. 


BY 

EDGAR masters, 

V', 

OF THE CHICAGO BAR. 

1 H 0 0 


: ‘V}! 

i,\ > r. • , 


• > 


' i*':' I 


mm, 


,^^ t ■ ' * ’ ^ : V' '' ^ • ,. 

i' ii'''i >»' *. 


■V rV’ ; W?v\*fA 
. '4 . ’■ V / 1 >^ 


- ^ w. 

' 4 • TJc 


iX' 




..I** 't'. 


'V-A. ^ '. 



y i 


• 4 ’ I 1 '»■•* 1 -, ' t . ■ ' ■'» ' I,- .*' /‘Vw. ■ 

* ' i, ' ' '. . .V' r ■ ■ ' ^. ' •' ' .X.' -**/.' i/'. ’ ' '.’• • -‘I ■'■! 

^ S|• .'• -V .r . ' iS'' , ■ < « . '• 

-.avva:,, / .'•. •,"■•■.■: '. ■■•:' 




/ 1 , • ’ 


\r. 


KO 


; N -v. 

, ■ /.•^■■ •• '■ 

' \ 


.*. 




l.i •%■' - V » 

)k] V- 

IHKR 


I j * .' • / 










}■. 


K' 






H 


V i.,< 


7j(rY.|whW 




;n 







;v . 

'.V: ‘. ■• 




. •••■ . 


• i f 


1 ;' K. \. 



. •) ■ 

•« 


' I ' .', ■ ' 


» k. 


J'' t 


« « 


^ 1 ^ 

, ^ • 


4 • 


• ^v ’ 


4 • r 


n /■•. I . 

j^VS-. ■: >■ ■ ■ 




; ■ ■ mkjM 


11 J 1 . I ' ' 













J-;: 


•' /. 


• i ■ i . 

' V. 

• >:.;>> ('x: 

*. i-' • f 





•>\k: . %j 4 1 , 4 - 

' •‘V'‘^ 'K 'V ’ 

' -m" ' .v^'- ♦ T <• \‘J 

■ *x '\* < 


■ ■ >; ' 
v, ^ 


,' K 

.n 




\ jJic:-. . -I' 


. 4.1 

■i:; 



¥ 


u 

< ' 

4 vs 

V 


. » 


.rM‘- 



^ 4 . 








' ■ 


' .' ■ , ■ 


I 


', • ; _ t •. Y i:ry 

', ■!- A ;:;^ :v ^ 


^ ■ - u 


>».'. t •* * 


I 


^ i 


vV"-, • 


.M 


k > 




V- , I \V ■ 

,' isi'. ,. '^ 




V- aV^V'-' •• .'• ■ 






THE MEANING OF IMPERIALISM. 


In the year of the Declaration of Independence in America 
there was published in England Adam Smith’s “Wealth of Na¬ 
tions,” which has maintained its place ever since as the greatest 
classic on Political Economy. While the Declaration of Indepen¬ 
dence announced the basic truths of political liberty the Wealth of 
Nations dealt the death blow to that principle of monarchy known 
as special privilege in government, which enables a favored class to 
eat the bread that others earn. The Declaration of Independence 
and the Wealth of Nations were fitly the product of the great year 
of 1776* They constitute a vantage ground from which men may 
ever assail political and economic oppression and b}^ which all men 
will ultimately reach political and industrial freedom. 

The fathers of this republic had not only mastered the princi¬ 
ples of this work but they were familiar with the writings of those 
great intellects of the past who had worked out the truths of free 
government through observation, experience and thought. Our 
fathers sought to found a republic upon those truths which are as 
eternal and invarible as axioms. Jefferson, Madison, Washington, 
Franklin and the other great men of that day, well knew the 
causes' which had declined the ancient powers. They knew it was 
defects in government which enabled classes to obtain a special 
privilege and thereby strengthen themselves upon the vitality of 
the masses. They sought to avoid any such result in this govern¬ 
ment. To this end they kept in view the principles of the Declara¬ 
tion of Independance as the guiding spirit, and they formulated a 
constitution in which the powers of government delegated to the 
agents of government were specifically enumerated. As Jefferson 
afterward wrote: “It is jealousy, not confidence, which prescribes 
limited constitutions to bind down those whom we are obliged to 



trust with power.” * In other words this government was founded 
upon the theory that the liberty of each man is limited only by 
the like liberty of all men and that when government protected 
that liberty and protected life and property it had subserved its 
sole legitimate functions. So much in advance of the time were 
the fathers of this republic, who anticipated the deductions of 
individualism so conclusively worked out in this century by Herbert 
Spencer.'I* Now while the limited character of the national 
government has been conceded by all jurists from Marshall to 
Fuller and by all statesmen from Jefferson to Lincoln, attempts 
have been made at all times by the same party under different 
names to break down these limitations. A government that 
merely gives all men the same chance in life has not been sufficient 
to those monarchists who seek special privilege in government in 
order to eat what others toil for. In 1791, the fight on the con¬ 
stitution was commenced by Alexander Hamilton. He had 
endeavored to commit the constitutional convention to the adoption 
of an organic instrument providing for the election of the 
executive, the senators and the judiciary in a manner independent 
of the people, who should hold their office for life. ^ This was 
rejected. But when Hamilton became secretary of the treasury 
he sought to accomplish the same monarchial ends by placing the 
government in the hands of money; or as Senator Lodge has 
expressed it he sought to “array property on the side of the 
government.” || Property, however, would not be arrayed on the 
side of the government unless it was paid for doing so; and there¬ 
fore Hamilton devised the allurements by which this was to be 
accomplished. Now, Hamilton was perfectly familiar with the 
“Wealth of Nations.” He knew that Adam Smith had therein 
demonstrated that a permanent national debt was a curse and 
must ultimately bear down any government burdened with one. ^ 
He knew that the Bank of England was an autocratic money 
power that had dictated to the English government what it should 
and should not do, thereby subduing its creator to its own designs. 
He knew that a protective tariff only enabled a class to thrive at 

* Kentucky Resolutions, 1795. 

f Social Statics. 

\ McCulloch vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 315. 

Constitutional Debates, pag-e 185. 

I Lodge’s Life of Hamilton. 

Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, page 470. 


4 


the expense of the masses.* But a permanent debt, a United 
States Bank and a protective tariff, arrayed property on the side 
of the government. And by converse it placed the government in the 
hands of property, thereby accomplishing the monarchical principle 
of special privilege, which had been defeated in the conventioe 
when it was broached in the guise of making the judiciarv, the 
senators and the executive independent of the will of the people. 
Therefore, Hamilton, as secretary of the treasury, prepared and 
carried through a funded debt, a national bank of issue based upon 
that debt, and a protective tariff. It did not matter that there 
were no provisions in the constitution for these things. It did not 
matter that the constitution nowhere, even by implication, pro¬ 
vided for the incorporation of a bank, whether of deposit or of 
issue; nor did it matter that the only power congress had under 
the constitution was to collect revenue for the expenses of the 
government and not to collect toll for the benefit of private 
individuals. These measures were carried through. 

The constitution was annulled, and the way was paved for the 
very colonial system which threatens the republic to-day. From 
the principle of the funded debt we have the bond issues of to-da}^ 
by which the people of this land are bowed down with the pay¬ 
ment of interest to the owners of money, as in England the 
aristocracy lives in idleness b}^ its investments in “the funds.” 
From the United States bank we have the national banks, which 
rest upon these bonds, and which issue paper money upon which 
they collect further interest. We have still the sam.e protective 
tariff, but in addition the giant trusts, which levy further tribute 
from the people, as a consequence in part of that tariff. All of 
these devices are part of the mercantile system which rests upon 
the superstition that gold and silver are the only wealth, and that 
whatever legislation increases the value or the supply of these 
metals, or enables them to control the people, should be favored. 
But the climax of the mercantile system is colonialism, and this 
subject Adam Smith fully discussed, and that question was as 
well understood by the fathers of the republic as by the thinkers 
of this century. 

Adam Smith showed that the policy of owning distant lands 
for exploitation grew out of the insane adventures of Spain in 

* See his report on Manufactures, Dec. 5, 1791. 


5 


taking possession of territory in order to secure gold and silver for 
the treasury of the king. The idea evolved until the object in 
view was changed to that of “founding a great empire for the sole 
purpose of raising up a people of customers.” It is uneconomic, 
but, as it benehts a class, as the tariffs, the bounties, subsidies, 
national banks and gold standard benefit a class, and as that class 
thrives upon it and becomes more able to control the government, 
that class is now working to fasten the colonial system upon this 
country. “To promote the little interests of one little order of men 
in one country, it hurts the interests of all other orders of men in 
that country and of all men in all other countries.”* The same 
author further says: “By the establishment of colonies in distant 
countries, not only particular privileges, bjut a monopoly was 
frequently procured for the goods and merchants of the country 
which established them. The maintenance of this monopoly has 
hitherto been the principal, or more properly the sole end and 
purpose of the dominion which Great Britain assumes over her 
colonies. In the exclusive trade, it is supposed, consists the great 
advantages of provinces, which have never yet afforded either 
revenue or military force for the support of the civil government 
of the mother country. The monopoly is the principal badge of 
their dependency, and it is the sole fruit which has hitherto been 
gathered from that dependency. Whatever expense Great 
Britain has hitherto laid out in maintaining this dependency has 
really been laid out in order to support this monopoly. * * * 

Monopoly of one kind or another, indeed, seems to be the sole 
engine of the mercantile system.’’-j* 

So that it may be said some trusts having been created by the 
tariff and others having received an impetus from the tariff, the 
tariff itself being the expression of monopoly, and all trusts in some 
manner owing their existence to the principle of monopoly effected 
by legislation, and these trusts, being about to exhaust the field of 
their creation, seek distant possessions, which is the grossest form 
of monopoly, as they must be protected by armies and navies, 
which the people at large must support. “It is the industry which 
is carried on for the benefit of the rich and powerful that is 
principally encouraged by our mercantile system.“To found 

* Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, p. 159. 

f Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, p. 126. 

i Wealth of Nations, Vol. II, pp. 127-144. 

6 


an empire for the sole purpose of raising up a people of customers 
may at first appear a project fit only for a nation of shop-keepers. 
It is, however, a project altogether unfit for a nation of shop-keepers, 
but extremely fit for a nation whose government is influenced by 
shop-keepers. Such statesmen, and such statesmen only, are 
capable of fancying that they will find some advantage in 
employing the blood and treasure of their fellow-citizens to found 
and maintain such an empire.”^ 

As the Federalists, and later the Whigs, encouraged every form 
of special privilege known to the code of the mercantile system, it 
is the highest ambition of the Republicans of to-day to finish that 
system by fixing the colonial policy on the people of the United 
States. This class has had its protective tariff, its funded debt, its 
gold standard, its banks of issue, its subsidies and its trusts. But 
these have exhausted the soil. They no longer suffice. They 
must now have colonies. They must do what England did when 
she plundered India in the name of the East India Company. 
They must exploit Porto Rico and the Phillipines and our people 
must pay the taxes and support an army and navy brought into 
being to protect the plunderers. They must do by imperialism 
in the islands what the trusts cannot do at home. The trusts will 
rob the citizen and imperialism will rob the non-resident. As 
Ruskin said: “Money is now exactly what mountain promontories 
over public roads were in old times. The barons fought for them 
fairly, the strongest and cunningest got them, and made everyone 
who passed below pay toll. Well, capital now is exactly what 
crags were then. Men fight fairly—we will at least grant so much, 
though it is more than we ought—for their money; but once having 
got it the fortified millionaire can make everybody who passes 
below pay toll to his million and build another tower of his money 
castle. 

Hence it will be seen why administration sympathizers have 
declared that the constitution does not follow the flag, but that 
trade does follow the flag. If the Filipinos and Porto Ricans 
are under the constitution they cannot be exploited by the trusts; 
but if they are merely under the flag of the military or such other 
arbitrary rule as Congress imposes upon them, then they can 
be exploited. So it becomes necessary to keep the flag up and 

* Id., p. 126. 

f “Iscariot in England.” 


7 


the'constitution down; and while it is base treason to haul down 
the flag, it is conduct dictated by “enlightened ideas and a sense 
of national honor” to refuse to extend the provisions of the con¬ 
stitution over barbarous races unfit for self-government. If a 
constitutional question is raised we are reminded of “implied 
powers” and of the powers of a sovereign nation. But why 
will these same thinkers forever write into the constitution implied 
powers in favor of special privilege and monarchy and refuse to 
write implied powers into it in favor of equal laws and liberty? 
When they passed the tariff act, the funding act and the bank act 
of 1791,^ they wrote into the constitution implied powers in favor 
of special privilege, and when they say now that the constitution 
by implication permits the holding of colonies they are writing 
implied powers into it in favor of despotism. These things are 
done solely to get money. As a law writer says: “The doctrines 
which have been crystalized into the maxims of the law that the 
welfare of the people is the supreme law, and enjoy your own 
property in such a manner as not to injure that of another person, 
and the early maxims that all rights and all contracts are held 
subject to the police power of the State are annulled. Commerce 
is king!”‘|* 

THE PROPOSITION OF IMPERIALISTS. 

But the constitution was adopted to secure the blessings of 
liberty and not to secure the blessings of trade. Our fathers 
understood and believed that all profitable trade comes to a nation 
without a soldier or a ship or an act of legislation favoring any 
man or class. Washington said as much in his farewell address. 
Commerce should not be enthroned on the ruins of human liberty, 
nor should the courts or the legislatures allow the dollar to obscure 
the man or the rights of property to triumph over the rights of 
men. The blessings of liberty, which are the climacteric ends of 
the constitution, should be the paramount thought of the agents of 
goyernment. But the colonial policy annuls the constitution in 
spirit and in fact. All the objects of the adoption of that instru¬ 
ment stated in the preamble are thereby subordinated to the 
interests of trade. And when it is considered that the constitution 

* The United State3 Bank had a monopoly for twenty years. See act of 
Congress. 

f Andrews, American Uaw, page 353. 

8 


represents centuries of struggle, that it was the victory of the 
principle that law shall rule, and that man, as an arbitrary force, 
shall not rule, the proposition to overthrow the constitution or even 
to write implied powers into it in order to hold the Phillipines is 
revolution dictated by despotism. It institutes absolutism for a 
government of constitutional and limited power. 

But there are two classes of imperialists. There are those 
who maintain that under that clause of the constitution which pro¬ 
vides that Congress shall have power “to dispose of and make all 
needful rules and regulations for the territory and other property 
of the United States,” that the islands may be held and governed 
as Congress may see fit. The other class maintains that the 
United States by virtue of its sovereignty has the power to acquire, 
hold and govern the islands; that while there is nothing in the con¬ 
stitution on the subject the power arises as a necessary implication 
of sovereignty, and that Congress in its legislation is not bound 
by the constitution at all. In the latter class is one of the con¬ 
gressmen of Illinois, who states his position thus: 

t“My position, Mr. Chairman, is that when the ratification of 
the reaty shall have been exchanged and our country shall have 
acquired from Spain her title of sovereignty over the Phillipine 
Islands, we shall hold them as a common possession, province, 
colony, territory or whatever it may be called, belonging to the 
States, which in their confederate capacity constitute the national 
union. We may deal with and govern these new possessions as 
we please unrestricted except by our intelligent ideas of humanity, 
civilization, liberty and good government. * * We may 

govern them with a government absolutely despotic in its 
character, etc.”* 

Now, as showing that this statement of congressional power 
converts that body into a British Parliament, let us consider what 
the latter body is: “The British Parliament has always been, was 
then and remains now a sovereign and constituent assembly. It 
can make and unmake any and every law, change the form of 
government or the succession to the crown, interfere with the 
course of justice, extinguish the most sacred private rights of the 
citizen. Between it and the people at large there is no legal 
distinction, because the whole plentitude of the people’s rights and 
powers reside in it, just as if the whole nation were present within 
V * Hon. J. R. Mann in the House, February 13, 1899. See also speech of 
Senator Culloin in Senate, April 2,1900. 

9 


the chamber where it sits. In point of legal theory it is the 
nation, being the historical successor of the Folk Moot of our 
Teutonic forefathers. Both practically and legally it is to-day the 
only and the efficient depository of the authority of the nation, 
and is, therefore, within its sphere of law irresponsible and 
omnipotent.”* 

Now, if the congressman spoken of had reflected he would 
have seen that when Congress sits neither in theory nor in law are 
the whole American people in the halls of Congress. The Con¬ 
gress exercises delegated powers, and therefore the people are 
only present in so far as those powers are delegated. The Con¬ 
gress has not the plentitude of the people’s rights, nor is it the 
only and efficient authority of the nation. It is, therefore, not 
capable of making law except within the constitutional limits 
neither as to islands nor as to any other subject, and cannot be 
irresponsible and omnipotent. To say, therefore, that Congress 
can impose a despotic government on the Filipinos is to incur one 
of the grossest political solecisms. Is it to be wondered at that in 
the light of such language used b}^ this congressman that the im¬ 
perialists have been charged with all the intentions of monarchy. 
Long ago Edmund Burke in defending monarchial government 
said: “The rights of men in government are their advantages.” 
And Thomas Paine said in reply: “That government (according 
to Burke) is governed by no principle—that government is arbitrary 
power.’’"f* The language of Mr. Mann, and Bryce’s description of 
Parliament and Burke’s exposition of government are all in the 
same key and mean the same thing. It contradicts the very defini¬ 
tion of a constitutional republic. It flies in the face of all that has 
been said by the fathers of the republic and the noble defenders 
and expounders of our system. It annuls the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence held by the Supreme Court to be the spirit of our gov¬ 
ernment of which the constitution is the form and letter. For the 
Declaration of Independence did not merely emancipate the Ameri¬ 
can people from English dominion, but it also emancipated them 
forever from monarchial ideas in whatever form they may be 
presented. 


* Boyce’s American Commonwealth, Vol. I, page 32. 
f See Comparative Statement on French Revolution, Vol. II. 


lO 


SECTION 3 OF ARTICLE IV. OF THE CONSTITUTION. 

To recur now to the contention that under the clause of the 
constitution providing that Congress shall have power “to dispose 
of and make all needful rules and regulations for the territory and 
property of the United States,” the United States may own other 
islands or provinces, colonies or territory, let us examine the 
strength of this contention. Statesmen like Madison and 
Washington did not use the words “dispose of” when they meant 
“acquire,” nor did they use the words “rules and regulations” 
when the}'' meant “legislation.” They used the words “exclusive 
legislation” when conferring power upon Congress respecting the 
seat of government. But it will appear hereafter that this 
“exclusive legislation” has never, in the opinion of the Supreme 
Court, enabled Congress to pass any law as to the District of 
Columbia w’hich conflicted with the constitution. But passing 
these things by as unimportant, the clause in the constitution 
under consideration referred to the North-western territory and to 
nothing else. The specific article “the” was used in connection 
with the word “territory,” and not merely the word “territory,” 
unlimited and unqualified. The history of this territory is that in 
1784, three years before the constitution was formulated, Virginia 
had ceded to the United States all of the territory northwest of the 
Ohio river, and her example was followed by other States, until at 
the time of the adoption of the constitution North Carolina and 
Georgia alone held any land in their right as sovereign States. 
This territory ceded to the United States then contained certain 
personal property that is “other property,” and as no special grant 
to Congress was necessary to enable it to control government 
ships .and munitions of war, the needful rules and regulations not 
only applied to “the territory” but to the personal property in that 
territory. The question was specifically settled in the constitution 
so as to leave no doubt on the subject. But in the very next 
clause of the constitution there is this proviso, “that nothing in this 
constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the 
United States or of any particular State.” This proviso was 
offered in the constitutional convention by Governeur Morris, of 
Pennsylvania, in order to quiet the fears of North Carolina and 
Georgia, and as an amendment to a motion of Daniel Carroll, of 
Maryland, providing merely that “the claim of the United States 
to vacant lands” should not be affected. And Mr. Madison then 


II 


and there said: “He did not view the proviso of Mr. Carroll as 
dangerous; but to make it neutral and fair it ought to go 
further and declare that the claims of particular States should 
not be affected.”* 

But particular States then had no claims except as to the 
Northwestern territory, and, therefore, to say that this provision 
of the constitution enables the government to acquire territory, or 
islands eight thousand miles in the sea, and if to acquire such 
islands, then to acquire territory anywhere is to ignore the plain 
meaning of the constitution, apparent on its face and explained in 
full by the words of the fathers used when this particular matter 
was pending before them. If this article in the constitution 
enables the government to acquire islands and to make needful 
rules and regulations therefor, despotic or otherwise, how shall the 
clause be construed that claims of particular States shall not be 
prejudiced? What particular States ever had, or could have, any 
claims in Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico or California, or what 
States have any claims in the Phillipines to be prejudiced? These 
questions cannot be answered except by admitting and conceding 
that this article of the constitution referred to the disposition of the 
Northwestern territory and to the rules and regulations to be made 
by Congress for it and the personal property within its confines. 
And this appears more clearly by the language occurring in the 
very section in which such needful rules and regulations were 
provided for, and preceding them where it is written, “New States 
may be admitted into this Union.” Chief justice Marshall 
suggested that this article might authorize the acquisition of Florida 
or its acquisition might be justified upon the powers of the United 
States as a sovereignt3^j* But he did not decide the question 
specifically. Later, the Supreme Court held that this part of the 
constitution referred to the Northwestern territor^^ and to nothing 
else, and that is the unreversed and settled interpretation of it.J 
The proposition that the United States has power to acquire 
disconnected territory, places the whole matter within the arbitrary 
discretion of an administration. In fact, it places the matter in the 
hands of the executive, who can make treaties, with the concur¬ 
rence of the Senate, and as neither the executive nor the senators 
are elected by the people, the proposition places the republic on 

* Constitutional Debates, p. 638. 

f 1 Am. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Pet., 511. 

i Scott vs. Sanford, 19 How., 393-633. 

12 


dangerous ground. If this doctrine be true, nothing stands in the 
way of acquiring the whole or parts of China, the whole or parts 
of Asia, the whole or parts of Europe, and the original States 
would thus become crushed under the weight of colonization or 
overwhelmed by the power of distant States. “It is incredible 
that it should have been contemplated that any such overwhelming 
authority should be confided to the national government with the 
consent of the people of the States. If it exists at all, it is unfore¬ 
seen, and the result of a sovereignty intended to be limited and yet 
not sufficiently guarded. And although Congress has authority to 
admit new States into the firm, yet it is demonstrable that this 
clause had sole reference to the territory then belonging to the 
United States and was designed for the admission of States which, 
under the ordinance of 1787, were contemplated to be found 
within its boundaries.”* 

Mr. Madison, in the 38th number of the Federalist, argued 
that the acquisition of the Northwestern territory by the United 
States was an exercise of power not warranted by the articles of 
confederation and dangerous to the liberties of the people, and he 
urged the adoption of the constitution on the ground that the 
constitution would be a security and a safeguard against such an 
exercise of power again. Mr. Madison and Mr. Jefferson were 
thoroughly familiar with the work of Montesquieu and in founding 
this government they divided its departments into legislative, 
executive and judicial, in accordance with the principles laid down 
by that great political philosopher. They believed with him that a 
republic must be of compact territory and that when a republic 
extended its jurisdiction over disconnected territory, it from that 
moment accumulated additional and dangerous powers in the 
executive.J They knew that Rome ceased to be a republic when 
its extent became incompatible with the mild sway of the civil 
power which is adequate to govern a compact territory.And to 
say that they ever thought that the constitution could be tortured 
to permit the acquisition of distant islands is to impeach their 
wisdom and their integrity. They did not, and could not, foresee 
that their successors in office would ever attempt to construe 
needful rules and regulations concerning the Northwestern territory 
to mean despotic government for distant islands. 

* Story on the Constitution, Sec. 1285. 

f Montesquieu Spirit of Laws, Vol. I., p. 133. 

f Keig'htley’s History of Rome, Vol. II., p. 2. 

13 


“There is no pretence,” says Mr. Story, “that the purchase 
or cession of foreign territory is within any of the powers ex¬ 
pressly enumerated in the constitution. It is nowhere in that 
instrument said that Congress or any other department of the 
national government shall have a right to purchase or accept of 
any cession of foreign territory. The power itself, it has been 
said, could scarcely have been in the contemplation of the framers 
of it. It is in its own nature as dangerous to liberty, as susceptible 
of abuse in its actual application and as likely as any which could 
be imagined to lead to a dissolution of the union. If Congress 
have the power it may unite any foreign territory whatever to our 
own, however distant^ hozuever 'pofulotis^ and however -powerfuL 
Under the form of cession, we may become united to a more 
powerful neighbor or rival and be involved in European or other 
foreign interests and contests to an interminable extent.”^ 

That the executive and the senate can at their will enlarge 
'the boundaries of the United States is a proposition fraught with the 
greatest peril, especially under our system where we have no 
initiative and referendum and where an administration elected, 
perhaps, upon a single issue, may during its term provoke war and 
then annex territory in absolute contempt of the constitution and 
he present will of the people. In 1850, the Supreme Court con¬ 
sidered this very contingency with reference to Mexico; “The 
country” said the court, “had been conquered in war, but the 
genius and character of our institutions are peaceful and the power 
to declare war was not conferred upon congress for the purpose 
of aggression or aggrandizement, but to enable the general 
government to vindicate by arms, if it should become necessary, 
its own rights, and the rights of its citizens. A war, therefore, 
declared by Congress can never be presumed to be waged for the 
purpose of conquest or the acquisition of territory; nor does the 
law declaring the war imply an authority to the president to 
enlarge the limits of the United States b}^ subjugating the enemy’s 
country.” -I* 

So much, therefore, for the argument that under the article of 
the constitution providing for the disposition of the Northwestern 
territory, and for rules and regulations concerning it and 
other property, the acquisition of the Phillipines is justified. It is 

* Story of the Constitution, Sec. 1285. 

f Fleming et al, vs. Page, 9 How., 602. 


14 


mere sophistry to contend that this applies even to any other 
territory, much less to distant islands acquired in contempt of 
fundamental rights. 

FORMER ACQUISITIONS. 

But imperialists point to our various acquistions as 
precedents for the Phillipine acquisition. They even argue 
that the consent of the governed was not obtained of the 
inhabitants of Louisiana or Florida or New Mexico or California, 
which is to argue that a wrong once committed is a justification 
for the commission of the same wrong in the future, when and 
wherever done. Yet there is a difference between an act necessary 
to the existence of the republic and an act which is unnecessary and 
unjust, uneconomic and unconstitutional. We acquired Louisiana 
by purchase. Jefferson did not sophistically claim that the article 
concerning needful rules and regulations permitted this acquisition. 
He admitted frankly that it was of doubtful constitutionality.* He 
threw himself upon the mercy of his countrymen and his country¬ 
men then, and ever since, have justified it as an act of self-preser¬ 
vation to the republic. But the treaty of acquisition made the 
inhabitants citizens of the United States. They did consent to the 
form of government imposed, because their consent, as the consent 
of the people of to-day, was presumed from the failure to exercise 
the, right of expatriation. The very fact of their becoming 
citizens of the United States included consent. Because under 
our system there is no such thing as a government existing as an 
entity distinct from the people and, therefore, no such thing as 
allegiance to that government. Citizenship results from freedom 
and constitutional compact and implies equality. We acquired 
Florida and its inhabitants became citizens by the treaty, and the 
decision of the Supreme Court.J Afterwards the slavocracy 
fomented a war with Mexico, and we acquired Texas by annexa¬ 
tion, and New Mexico and California as the fruits of that war. 
This is a chapter to make every American blush to-day and it 
was denounced by Sumner, Lincoln and Lowell and the best men 
of that time. All of this territory, however, was adjoining 
our domain; it was capable of being carved into states, the 
only term used in the constitution respecting the enlargement 

* See his letter to Senator Breckenridg-e of Kentucky, Aug-. 12, 1803. 

f Am. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1, Pet.511. 

15 


of the Union, and most of it has been carved into states. It was 
adapted to be administered by the civil authorities. None of it was 
separated from us by a vast expanse of sea to be patroled by 
navies, and capable of no government. The constitution extended 
to every acre of it and therefore it could not be used to build up an 
empire of customers. Its inhabitants became citizens of the United 
States. Congress had only constitutional authority over it, and 
when Congress attempted to exercise unconstitutional authority 
over it the Supreme Court nullified such legislation. 

Thus the United States became a vast but homogeneous 
domain, a great republic protected by the constitution, governed 
by the civil authorities, needing neither armies nor navies, devoted 
to the arts of peace and achieving the higher civilization by 
adhering to the moral law. Its citizens had only the burdens of 
taxation necessary to protect life and property and ensure the 
blessings of constitutional liberty. No one was taxed to support 
armies and navies, maintained to hold distant possessions and 
extort trade from subjects. That was expansion, an expansion 
that was not always just. But it did not introduce into our system 
the poison of empire or compel us to withhold the Declaration of In¬ 
dependence and the constitution to do it. It is not expansion, but 
uneconomic imperialism and hungry commercialism that grasps 
for distant islands, not extending the constitution but withholding 
it, not making citizens but making subjects, not sustaining the 
Declaration of Independence but boldly thrusting it out of the way. 

Now we return to the second class of imperialists, those who 
claim that these islands can be ruled despotically and independent 
of the constitution, those who claim that the constitution does not 
follow the flag. Whether the constitution does extend to these 
islands depends in the first place upon the constitutionality of the 
treaty of peace. As there is not a word in the constitution 
concerning the acquisition of territory, much less disconnected 
territory, the validity of the present acquisition must be tested, not 
only by what the constitution provides for, but by the spirit of the 
constitution which is the Declaration of Independence, also by the 
nature of a republic, and the discussions in the constitutional 
convention and the history surrounding the framing and adoption 
of the constitution. By these tests, and by all the tests, the treaty 
of Paris is unconstitutional. Jefferson said the United States 
could own no territory that required a navy to defend it. The 

i6 


constitutionality of the treaty cannot be presumed from the mere 
fact that the constitution does not expressly forbid it. But as the 
Supreme Court held that the word ]ury meant a common law jury 
of twelve men,* thereby interpreting the constitution in the terms 
of liberty, so, whenever the constitution is silent, the validity ,of a 
law, or a treaty, is to be determined by inquiring whether it 
conforms to a republic and to republic institutions, and it cannot be 
held valid on the ground that England or Germany or Russia has 
a similar law, or has followed a similar course, and the constitution 
does not expressly forbid our doing so. 

The difference between acquiring adjacent territory capable 
of being carved into into States, and immediately protected by the 
constitution, whose inhabitants immediately become citizens of 
the United States, and acquiring disconnected territory like the 
Phillipine Islands in tlie manner and for the purpose and upon the 
theory which they were acquired was long ago, in 1820, clearly 
defined by Chief Justice Marshall. He said: “The difference 
between requiring a continent with an immense population to sub¬ 
mit to be taxed by a government having no common interest with 
it, separatedfrom it by a vast ocean^ restrained by no principle of 
apportionment and associated with it by no common feelings; and 
permitting the American people tmder the restrictions of our con¬ 
stitution to tax a part of the society which is either in a state of 
infanc}^ advancing to manhood, looking forward to complete equality 
so soon as that state of manhood shall be attained, as is the case 
with territories; or which has voluntarily relinquished the right of 
representation and has adopted the whole body of Congress for its 
legitimate government as is the case with the district, is too obvious 
not to present itself to the minds of all.”‘|* 

But so far as this discussion is concerned the constitutionality of 
the treaty need not be considered, because the imperialists assert that 
the treaty is valid and that Spain’s title was complete. And not to 
dwell upon the fact that the clause “to make all needful rules and 
regulations respecting the territory,” applies only to the manage¬ 
ment of property whether real or personal, and not to the govern¬ 
ing of people, we purpose to show that Congress cannot govern 
these islands despotically, but must recognize the inalienable rights 
of these inhabitants which existed prior to any treaty and which were 
expressed for them in our constitution when they were acquired. 

* Thompson vs. Utah, 170 U. S., 341-343. 

f Uoug-hboroug-h vs. Blake, S Wheat., 315. 

17 


THE SUPREME COURT HAS ALWAYS HELD THAT 
THE CONSTITUTION FOLLOWS THE FLAG. 

In 1820, the question of imposing a direct tax on the people 
of the District of Columbia came before the Supreme Court. Mr. 
Chief Justice Marshall then said: “The power then to lay and 
collect duties, imposts and excises may be exercised and must be 
exercised throughout the United States. Does this term designate 
the whole or any particular portion of the American Empire ? 
Certainly this question can admit of but one answer. It is the 
name given to our great republic, which is composed of States and 
territories. The District of Columbia or the territory west of the 
Missouri is not less within the United States than Maryland or 
Pennsylvania, and it is not less necessary that uniformity in the 
imposition of import duties and excises should be observed in the 
one than in the other.”* 

Therefore we have it from the great Federalist interpreter of 
the constitution that when the question arises as to the constitu¬ 
tionality of a law its validity depends upon its consonance to the 
constitution no matter whether that law is made for a district not a 
State, or territory not yet carved into a State. Hence, the con¬ 
stitution is in force over all United States territory and by the same 
authority the Porto Rican bill is void. 

Again, the Supreme Court said: “The people of the United 
States as sovereign owners of the national territories have supreme 
power over them and their inhabitants. In the exercise of this 
sovereign dominion they are represented by the government of 
the United States, to whom all the powers of government over 
that subject have been delegated subject only to such restrictions 
as are expressed in the constitution or are necessarily implied 
from its terms. 

In 1856, a more thorough exposition of this subject was made 
than at any other time. Chief Justice Taney said: “There is 
certainly no power given by the constitution to the Federal gov¬ 
ernment to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the United 
States or at a distance to be ruled and governed at its own 
pleasure; nor to enlarge its territorial limits in any way except by 
the admission of new States. That power is plainly given; and if 
a new State is admitted it needs no further legislation by Congress, 

* Loug-hboroug-h vs. Blake, 5 Wheat., 315. 
t Murphy vs. Ramsey, 114 U. S., 15-44. 

18 


because the constitution itself defines the relative rights and 
powers and duties of the State and the citizens of the State and the 
Federal government. But no power is given to acquire a territory 
to be held and governed permanently in that character. And, 
indeed, the power exercised by Congress to acquire territory and 
establish a government there was viewed with great jealousy by the 
leading statesmen of the day. And in the Federalist, No. 38, written 
by Mr. Madison, he speaks of the acquisition of the Northwestern 
territory by the confederated States by the cession from Virginia 
and the establishment of a government there as an exercise of 
power not warranted by the articles of confederation and danger¬ 
ous to the liberties of the people. * * * All we mean to 

say on this point is, that as there is no express regulation in the 
constitution defining the power which the general government may 
exercise over the person or property of a citizen in a territory thus 
acquired, the court must necessarily look to the provisions and 
principles of the constitution and its distribution of powers for the 
rules and principles by which its decision must be governed. ^ 
* ^ It (the federal government) enters upon it (new territory) 

with its powers over the citizen strictly defined and limited by the 
constitution from which it derives its own existence and by virtue of 
which alone it continues to exist and act as a government and 
sovereignty.”* 

The chief justice then proceeded to ask questions which may 
now be asked of imperialists. Could Congress withdraw from the 
Filipinos the right of free speech, the freedom of the press, the 
right to assemble and petition for redress, the right to keep and 
bear arms, the right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers 
and effects against unreasonable searches ? Could Congress pass 
as to them any bill of attainder or ex -post Jacto law ? Could it 
exact laws for their involuntary servitude ? Could it withdraw 
from these people the right of trial by jury either in civil or 
criminal cases ? Could Congress declare that the Porto Ricans or 
Filipinos are not citizens of the United States although they are 
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or could it deny them the right 
to vote on account of race or color ? If Congress cannot pass any 
such laws as to these islands it is the constitution which forbids 
them. Hence, the constitution has extended itself over them, and 
the exercise of despotic power by Congress over these inhabitants 
s forbidden by the constitution. 

* Scott vs. Sanford, 19 How., 393-633. 

19 


In 1795, the Circuit Court of the District of Pennsylvania, 
speaking through Mr. Justice Patterson, compared the power of 
the English government with the power of a constitutional govern¬ 
ment. Coke was therein quoted, who spoke of the power of 
Parliament as follows: ‘*lt runs without limit and rises above 
control. It is difficult to say what the constitution of England is, 
because not being reduced to written certainty and precision it lies 
entirely at the mercy of Parliament.” Then the court said: “In 
America the case is widely different. The constitution is certain 
and fixed; it contains the permanent will of the people, and is the 
supreme law of the land; it is paramount to the power of the 
legislature and can be revoked or altered only by the authority 
that made it. What are legislatures ? Creatures of the constitu¬ 
tion; they owe their existence to the constitution; they derive their 
powers from the constitution; it is their commission, and therefore 
all their acts must be conformable to it or else they will be void.”* 
The character of the republic was thus defined by Mr. Chief 
Justice Marshall in 1816: “The government of the United States 
is emphatically and truly a government of the people. In fact and 
substance it emanates from them; its powers are granted by them 
and for their benefit. This government is acknowledged by all to 
be one of enumerated powers. The principle that it can only 
exercise the powers granted to it would seem too apparent to have 
required to be enforced by all these arguments which its 
enlightened friends, while it was pending before the people, found 
it necessary to urge.” •}• 

Then, in 1897, Mr. Justice Harlan, speaking for the Supreme 
Court, in comment upon the differences between the powers of 
Parliament as outlined by Mr. Bryce, herein quoted, and the powers 
of Congress, said: “No such powers have been given to, or can 
exercised by any legislative body organized under the American 
system. Absolute, arbitrary^ power exists nowhere in this free 
land. The authority for the exercise of power by the Congress of 
the United States must be found in the constitution. Whatever it 
does in excess of the powers granted to it or in violation of the 
injunctions of the supreme law of the land is a nullity and may be 
treated so by every person.” ;}; 

* Van Horne’s Ivessee vs. Dorrance, 2 Dallas, 304. 

f McCullough vs. Maryland, 4 Wheat., 316. 

I Robertson vs. Baldwin, 165 U. S., 715. 


20 


These plain and necessary principles have never been ignored 
until Congress began to deal with the Phillipines and Porto Rico. 
In a very recent case the Supreme Court said: “That the pro¬ 
visions of the constitution of the United States relating to the right 
of trial b}^ jury in suits at common law apply to the territories of 
the United States is no longer an open question.The same 
point had before been passed upon many times by that court.f 
The right of trial by jury in the District of Columbia exists by 
virtue of the constitution, 3rd article and the 5th and 6th amend¬ 
ments.J 

In 1890, the court said: “How far the exercise of that (con¬ 
gressional) power is restrained by the essential principles upon 
which our system of government rests and which are embodied in 
the constitution we need not stop to inquire, though we may repeat 
what was said in latc corporation of Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter Day Saints vs. United States: “Doubtless Congress in 
legislating for the territories would be subject to those funda¬ 
mental limitations in favor of personal rights which are formulated 
in the constitution and its amendments.”^ 

And again in 1898, Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the court 
concerning the question of jury trial in the District of Columbia, 
said: “It is beyond doubt at the present day that the provisions 
of the constitution securing the right of trial by jury, whether in 
civil or criminal cases, are applicable to the District of Columbia.”|| 
But without making further citations it is apparent that the 
constitution extends itself and executes itself wherever there is 
United States territory. If the Congress is an irresponsible, un¬ 
constitutional and despotic body the Supreme Court has erred for 
almost a hundred years in holding Congress to its constitutional 
limits in legislating for the territories. And it will be observed 
that the most of these decisions deal with territory west of the 
Missouri river and not to the Northwest territory contemplated by 
the constitution. 

All congressional legislation for the territories having been 
sustained when it conformed to the constitution and invalidated 

* Thompson vs. State of Utah, 170 U. S., 341-343. 

t Webster vs. Reid, 52 U. S., 437-446; Am. Pub. Co. vs. Fisher, 166 U. S., 
464-568; Spring-ville vs. Thomas, 256 U. S., 707. 

X Callan vs. Wilson, 127 U. S., 228. 

§ McAllister vs. U. S., 141 U. S., 693. 

II Capitol Traction Co. vs. Hoff., 174 U. S., 873. 


21 


when it ran counter to the constitution, the attempt of imperialists 
to whittle away the effect of these decisions is futile. The 
Supreme Court, therefore, is a bulwark of strength on this ques¬ 
tion. If these inlands are United States territory the constitution 
protects their inhabitants, and the Declaration of Independence, 
which the Supreme Court has declared to be the soul of the con¬ 
stitution, is the charter of their liberties. The Congress and the 
president have assumed despotic and unconstitutional powers, but 
in the words of Lincoln: “The people of these United States are 
the rightful masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow 
the constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the con¬ 
stitution.”* 

THE GHOST OF MARSHALLISM. 

While at present we see two classes of imperialists, those, 
who rely upon the needful rules and regulations clause of the con¬ 
stitution and those who boldly talk of the sovereignty of the United 
States as an entity which exists above and independent of the 
constitution, there is likely to develop another class of imperialists. 
Those who rely upon the needful rules and regulations clause can 
be easily disposed of. That clause pertained only to the North¬ 
western territory and history ts so plain on that subject that the 
question is not debatable. On the other hand when imperialists 
talk about sovereignty as something having existence outside of 
the constitution; as a power to be interpreted and employed by an 
administration according to its understanding of the term or 
according to the mere expediency of the administration’s supporters 
or as a function having all the attributes of arbitrary power, they 
can be overcome by a slight consideration of the essentials of our 
system. But if the acquisition of distant islands shall be predicated 
upon that character of reasoning which led Chief Justice Marshall 
to pronounce the United States Bank constitutional, then the 
republic will need to fight for its very life. Marshall said: “Let 
the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the constitution, 
and all means which are appropriate, which are plainl}^ adapted to 
that end, which are not prohibited but consist with the letter 
and spirit of the constitution are constitutional.” 

The United States Bank was an institution essentially alien to 
our system, it was a monopoly, and the constitution nowhere em¬ 
powers Congress to incorporate a bank. But the act of Congress 
Speech at Cincinnati, September 17,1859. 


22 


incorporating it was held to be within the implied powers of Con¬ 
gress, which must be held to exist in order that Congress may 
carry into execution the “foregoing powers.” The question then 
arose as to what power the incorporation of the bank related as a 
means to accomplish its execution. Hamilton in his report on a 
national bank* argued that it related to the collection of taxes, to 
the borrowing of money and to the common defense, because the 
government could borrow money of the bank to carry on war. 
This argumentation of Hamilton furnished to Marshall the founda¬ 
tion of his reasoning in McCulloch vs. Maryland. Now, then, if 
the bank is related to the execution of these enumerated powers, 
the end for which the bank exists as a means, is legitimate because 
expressly provided for in the constitution. Hence, in writing im¬ 
plied powers into the constitution the real trouble lies in sanction¬ 
ing that legislation which bears a mere fantastic relation to some 
enumerated power, which might have the effect of carrying it into 
execution, but which would not be necessary mid proper to that 
end. There is no attempt to revamp strict constructionism. But 
when our fathers sketched in the constitution a list of congressional 
powers, and then only invested Congress with the additional 
power of legislating to effect the enumerated powers; that is, to 
make “laws which shall be necessary and proper” to that end; it 
follows that the very stability of our system and the integrity of 
the Republic as such, requires all legislation not expressly pro¬ 
vided for, to be in harmony with the spirit of a Republic, and not 
in harmony with the spirit of monarchy. The constitution was 
made for man and not man for the constitution, and therefore 
supreme exigences may arise when the constitution may be lib¬ 
eralized and freely construed, but only in favor of liberty and a 
republican system. When the bank case was before the Supreme 
Court, it was argued by counsel that an interpretation put upon 
the constitution enabling the creation of a bank monopoly, would 
also enable the creation of a trading monopoly like the East India 
Company, as a means for accomplishing the enumerated power of 
regulating “commerce with foreign nations,” and as such a com¬ 
pany would have a fantastic relation to commerce, the law creating 
it must be held constitutional. It being held that the word “neces¬ 
sary” does not mean “absolutely necessary,” but merely “conducive 
to,” there can be no clear-cut limit to the legislation which might be 
* See Select Documents of the United States—McDonald. 


23 


conducive to the accomplishment of some enumerated power. But 
it would seem that Marshall did not consider that under the consti¬ 
tution every implied power must be “proper” as well as necessary to 
the attainment of the enumerated power. It is impossible, therefore, 
to foresee the ultimate consequences of Marshallism as expressed 
in his language above quoted, which has become the settled test of 
the constitutionality of any measure. If Congress shall pursue a 
colonial policy toward the islands, why may not its legislation in 
doing so be upheld as constitutional? The Supreme Court has held 
that it can not judge of the degree of necessity which may be in¬ 
volved in any particular act. What, therefore, can save the United 
States from colonialism under Marshall’s dictum except the latter 
part of it, that the means to the end must not be prohibited by the 
constitution, “but consist with the letter and spirit of the constitu¬ 
tion.” Yet, under that test a banking monopoly was validated. So 
that, does not the acquisition of islands result from the power “to 
declare war” and “to provide for the common defense?” Does not 
the government imposed upon them rest for its sanction upon the 
promotion “of the general welfare?” If this attitude shall be taken 
as an ultimate and conclusive stand upon the question, then repub¬ 
lican institutions will be dealt their death blow in the namejof the 
great chief justice who did so much to found and perpetuate the 
republic. No such piece of irony could be found in the history of 
nations. For if he, as a great school of political thought has always 
maintained, disregarded the “letter and spirit of the constitution” in 
dealing with the United States bank, will a degenerate political 
party, possessing all the elements of paramountcy, regard the letter 
and spirit of the constitution in dealing with the vexed questions of 
the Philippines and Porto Rico? 

LINCOLN, WEBSTER AND OTHERS ON THE 
STATUS OF TERRITORY. 

In the great debates between Lincoln and Douglas, Lincoln 
had frequent occasion to discuss the Dred Scott decision which 
held that the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional. There 
was no difference of opinion between Chief Justice Taney and 
Lincoln that the constitution extended over the western territory. 
Lincoln predicated Federal control of slavery in that territory 
upon the ground that there was nothing in the constitution to for¬ 
bid it, but everything in the Declaration of Independence and the 


24 


spirit of our institutions to warrant it. While Taney held that as 
the constitution recognized slavery, a law applying to territory 
forbidding slavery therein was unconstitutional. But it is per¬ 
ceived that they were at one in the opinion that it was a question 
to be tested by the constitution. The civil war came and as a 
result of that war the amendments to the constitution abolishing 
slavery and enfranchising the negro. And since then the Supreme 
tCourt has said that the amendment abolishing slavery is “undoubt¬ 
edly self-executing without any ancillary legislation so far as its 
terms are applicable to any existing state of circumstances. By its 
own unaided force and effect it abolished slavery and established 
universal freedom.”* 

The same arguments that are now made by imperialists con¬ 
cerning the Filipinos were made by the advocates of slavery before 
hat institution was abolished by the sacrifice of so much blood and 
treasure. Stephen A. Douglas said in one of the joint debates 
with Lincoln: “I do not believe that the signers of the Declara¬ 
tion of Independence had any reference to negroes when they used 
the expression that all men were created equal, or that they had 
any reference to the Chinese or Coolies, the Indians, the Japanese 
or any other inferior race. They were speaking of the white race, 
the European race on this continent and their descendants and 
emigrants who should come here. They were speaking only of 
the'white race and never dreamed that their language would be 
construed to include the negro.’’J 

Lincoln had said at Chicago a few days before: “These 
arguments that are made that the inferior races are to be treated 
with as much allowance as they are capable of enjoying, that as 
much is to be done for them as their condition will allow. What 
are these arguments ? They are the arguments that kings have 
made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will 
find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of this class; 
they alwa3^s bestrode the necks of the people not that they wanted 
to do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. 
That is their argument, and this argument of the judge is the same 
old serpent that says, you work and I eat; you toil and I will enjoy 
the fruits of it. Turn it in whatever way you will, whether it 
comes from the mouth of a king as an excuse for enslaving the 

* Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S., 3-20. 

f L/incoln and Douglas Debates, page 114. 

25 


pepple of his country, or from the mouth of men of one race as a 
reason for enslaving the men of another race, it is the same old 
serpent. j should like to know if, taking this old 

Declaration of Independence which declares that all men are equal 
upon principle and making exceptions to it, where will it stop ? 
If one man says it does not mean a negro, why not another say it 
does not mean some other man ?”* 

Daniel Webster is pointed to and his language employed to 
impugn the Declaration of Independence. In the Senate on August 
12, 1848, he declared that he saw no injustice in congressional 
legislation forbidding the further extension of slavery, and that 
Congress is subject in dealing with the slavery question to the 
rules of justice and propriety, but is under no constitutional 
restraint. Webster’s vacillation on the slavery question is a matter 
of familiar history, and in the debate of 1849, Calhoun forced him 
to abandon this position and to admit that Congress cannot go 
beyond the constitution in legislating for the territories. 

In the Senate in March, 1848, that is before either the dictum 
relied upon and its abandonment, Webster used this language: 
“Arbitrary governments may have territories and distant posses¬ 
sions, because arbitrary governments may rule them by different 
laws and different systems. We cannot do such things. They^ 
must be of us, part of us, or else strangers. I think I see a coul*se 
adopted which is likely to turn the constitution of the land into a 
deformed monster, into a curse rather than a blessing; in fact, a 
frame of an unequal government, not founded on popular repre¬ 
sentation, not founded on equality, but on the grossest inequality, 
and I think that this process will go on or that there is danger that 
it will go on until this union shall fall to pieces. I resist it to-day 
and always! Whoever falters or whoever flies, I continue the 
contest.” 

Before the adoption of the constitution, James Madison who, 
was the father of the constitution and who was as well informed 
of its spirit and intent and its familiar and pre-natal history as any 
man, wrote in the Federalist as follows: 

“The object of the Federal constitution is to secure the union 
of the thirteen primitive States, which we know to be practicable; 
and to add to them such other States as may arise in their own 
* Speeches and Debates, p, 90. 


26 


bosoms or in their neighborhood, which we cannot doubt will be 
practicable.”* 

William H. Seward said that the framers of the constitution 
never contemplated colonies or provinces or territories at all, and 
that they contemplated nothing but sovereign States.^ 

The argument of authority of what men have said rests there¬ 
fore upon the utterances of Madison, Jefferson, Webster, Story, 
Seward and Lincoln, and the Supreme Court, speaking through 
Marshall, Taney, Matthews, Bradle}^ Gray and Harlan, bringing 
these interpretations of the constitution against the contemplated 
revolution in our form of government down to the very year of the 
Spanish war. 

EARLY REPUBLICAN PLATFORMS. 

The degeneracy of the Republican party can be shown in no 
clearer way than by comparing its present course and its platform 
of 1900 with its course at the beginning of its history and its plat¬ 
forms at that time. And this is pertinent here also as showing 
how that party formerly regarded the constitution with reference 
to United States territor}^ The Republican platform in 1856 used 
this language: “Resolved, that with our Republican fathers we 
hold it to be a self-evident truth that all men are endowed with the 
inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and 
that the primary object and ulterior designs of our Federal gov¬ 
ernment were to secure these rights to all 'persons zvithin its exclu¬ 
sive jurisdiction; that our Republican fathers when they had abol¬ 
ished slavery in all of our national territory ordained that no per¬ 
son should be deprived of life, liberty or property without due pro¬ 
cess of law, it becomes our duty to maintain this provision of the 
constitution against all attempts to violate it, for the purpose of 
establishing slavery in any. territory of the United States by posi¬ 
tive legislation; that we deny the authority of Congress 
to give legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United 
States while the present constitution shall be maintained.” 

In i860, the Republican party re-iterated this plank and 
declared that the principles of the Declaration of Indepence must 
be maintained in order to preserve republican institutions. In 
1868, the platform upon which Grant was elected contained this 
plank: “That we recognize the great principles laid down in the 

*The Federalist, No. 14. 
t Seward’s Works, Vol. 1, p. 122* 

27 


I 


immortal Declaration o f Independence as the true foundation of 
democratic government, and we hail with gladness every effort 
toward making these 'principles a living reality on every inch of 
American soil,^^ 

These declarations sho’w that the Republican party was 
founded on the principles of Jefferson. But how that party has 
fallen when it declares that trade follows the flag and that the 
constitution does not follow the flag! How it has fallen when the 
present administration exerted its whole force to deny the Declara¬ 
tion of Independence to vast areas of “American soil,” to make 
subjects, to prosecute a war of conquest and to perpetrate revolu¬ 
tion in the very face of the American people! 

THE POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES 

HERETOFORE. 

It has been the policy of the United States in the past as to all 
territories to observe the principles of the Declaration of 
Independence to the utmost limit of possibility. When Douglas 
argued that the Declaration of Independence could not be fully 
observed and fully extended and obeyed, Lincoln said that it 
should be obeyed so far as imperfect man and imperfect inviron- 
ment would permit. The people of the territories have heretofore 
elected their legislatures, and a delegate to the Federal Congress, 
who had the right of debate in its halls. The territorial legistature 
could pass any law not inconsistent with the constitution of the 
United States. The people elected their justices of the peace and 
their military officers, and their township, district and county 
officials were appointed or elected as the executive and legislature 
should determine.* The president of the United States with the 
concurrence of the senate appointed the territorial governors, the 
judiciary, the attorney general and the marshalls. All of these 
officials, except the governor, are appointed by the President 
immediately or mediately for the States, so that heretofore the 
people of the United States territories have enjoyed the fullest 
measure of popular sovereignty, all directed to the end of their 
ultimate formation into states, and their admission into the Union. 

The Supreme Court, in 1892, speaking through Mr. Justice 
Gray in Shively vs. Bowlby,^^ used this langugage: “Upon the 

Italics are mine. 

* See U. S. Rev. Stat. 
t 152 U. S., 331. 


28 


acquisition of a territory by the United States, whether by 
cession from one of the States or by treaty with a foreign 
country or by discovery and settlement, the same title and 
dominion passed to the United States for the benefit of the whole 
people and in trust for the several stales to be ultimately created oat 
of the territory P 

It will be noticed here, as in all expressions of the Supreme 
Court, and as in all the writings and speeches of our statesmen 
from the earliest days, that what is contemplated as to territory is 
the ultimate creation of States from it and their admission into the 
Union. Now add to this fixed and unvaried view of this matter, 
crystalized as it is into fundamental law, the provisions of the 
constitution that the United States shall guarantee to every 
state in this Union a republican form of government, and 
what becomes of the monstrous doctrine that the President 
and the Senate may acquire distant islands for the United States 
incapable of being carved into states, and that then Congress may 
govern them with a government absolutely despotic and un¬ 
restrained by the the limits of the constitution? Applying the 
rule of the Supreme Court, the Phillipines have been acquired for 
the benefit of the whole people, and in trust for the several States 
to be ultimately created out of those islands. But the impossibility 
as well as the undesirability of creating these islands into States 
has driven the imperialists into the pronouncement of despotic 
government over then. When the islands are carved into states 
their inhabitants would be citizens of these states as well as of the 
United States, and through the medium of the states could 
participate with 2,000,000 or more votes in the political power of 
the whole United States.^ They could not be denied the right of 
suffrage by these states on account of race or color, nor could 
they be denied it by the United States, and the present condition of 
servitude of the people of the Sulu Islands could not be invoked to 
deny the suffrage. 

If the treaty with Spain is constitutional the Filipinos inhabit¬ 
ing the islands at the time of the acquisition became by virtue of 
the Declaration of Independence and the constitution citizens of 
he United States. Chief Justice Marshall in construing the 
Florida treaty, which provided that its inhabitants as soon “as may 

* Ins. Co. vs Canter, 1 Pet., 511. 

f XV. Amendment. 


29 


be consistent with the principles of the Federal constitution,” shall 
be “admitted to the enjoyment of the privileges, rights and im¬ 
munities of the citizens of the United States,” held that “this treaty 
is the law of the land and admits the inhabitants of Florida to the 
enjoyment of the privileges, rights and immunities of the citizens 
of the United States.”* The inhabitants were only precluded 
from sharing in the political power of the United States although 
they had local popular sovereignty. 

A republic has no term but citizen to apply to any person 
subject to its jurisdiction.-j* “The personal and civil rights of the 
inhabitants of the territories are secured to them, as to other 
citizens, by the principles of constitutional libert}^ which restrain 
all the agencies of government. State and national; their political 
rights are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legisla¬ 
tive discretion of the Congress of the United States. 

The Supreme Court long ago held that the Cherokee Indians 
had the right of self-government in their domain in the State of 
Georgia § and that their right over this land was absolute.|| 

Citizenship of the United States does not imply the right to 
vote. That right is regulated by the State in subjection, of course, 
to the Federal constitution. As to territories the United States 
exercises the combined po\yers of the general and State govern¬ 
ments so far as political rights are concerned in the same manner 
as the State legislates for counties. Both the Florida and the 
Louisiana treaties contained stipulations for the ultimate citizenship 
of their inhabitants with the rights, privileges and immunities of 
such citizens, and Chief Justice Marshall in construing the Florida 
treaty held that the Floridans were then, during the territorial 
condition, citizens of the United States with all the constitutional 
rights implied by the term. The same ruling applies by force of 
reason to the Louisiana treaty. But can it be said, when the 
Supreme Court has held that “a treaty cannot change the consti¬ 
tution or be held valid if it be in violation of that instrument,”^ 
that the recent treaty with Spain is a valid treaty whose legal 

* Am. Ins. Co. vs. Canter, 1 Pet., 541. 

f Chisholm vs. Georgia, 2 Dallas, 419. 

X Murphy vs. Ramsey, 114 U. S.’ 15-44, Justice Matthews. 

^ Cherokee Nation vs. State of Georgia, 5 Pet., 20. 

II Johnson and Graham’s Lessee vs. McIntosh, 8 Wheat., 592. 

The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall., 616-620. 


30 


force is to make the Filipinos subjects ? There is such a manifest 
difference between the people of a territory having the rights, 
privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States and 
exercising the political power in their own affairs, and the people of 
these islands having no rights whatever, being in fact subjects and 
held to obedience to an alien and arbitrary power, that he must be 
blind, indeed, who cannot see it. We have never before known 
of a subject anywhere within the jurisdiction of the United States; 
and so long as the Declaration of Independence and the constitu¬ 
tion and the interpretations of them by the great intellects of this 
country remain in memory the proposition to create subjects will 
be resisted with the utmost vigor. 

But what shall be said of those Filipinos born since the United 
States acquired jurisdiction over the islands ? The XIV amend¬ 
ment provides “that all persons born or naturalized in the United 
States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the 
United States.” Now, as Chief Justice Marshall held that the 
term “United States” “is the name given to our great republic, 
which is composed of States and territories,”* if the treaty of Spain 
be valid the Phillipine Islands are United States territory and are 
included in that term, and persons born in those islands not the 
children of ambassodors or sojourners subjects of other govern¬ 
ments are by the constitution citizens of the United States. 

Therefore the Congress can pass no law which runs counter 
to any express prohibition of the constitution such as those contained 
in the bill of rights; nor can it pass any law which has the 
effect of destroying that equality which is defined in the Declaration 
of Independence. It can pass no law which withdraws from the 
Islanders any of the rights, privileges or immunities of citizens of 
the United States. It can pass no law, the effect of which either 
directly or indirectly is to make them subjects. They must, in 
the language of Webster, “be of us, part of us, or else strangers.” 
So far as the express limitations in the constitution are concerned 
the imperialists must concede that Congress is walled about and to 
that extent we are that “crippled power.” that weakling nation,” 
which Mr. Roosevelt so much deprecates our being. So that 
whenever imperialists incur the bill of rights or any express 
limitation they will incur the Supreme Court in its past decisions 
and it is to be hoped in its future decisions. But as to the other 
imperialistic tack, that is a different and a graver matter. When 
* Loug-hboroug-h vs. Blake, 5 Wheat;, 315. 

31 


they create subjects or destroy the equality of men, or throttle 
liberty in any way, or confer special privileges to plutocracy by 
establishing colonialism, and to that end maintain armies and navies, 
or in short when they substitute the blessings of trade for the 
blessings of liberty and by thus perverting the constitution 
estalish upon its remains the substance of monarchy—when they 
do these things and then have the audacity to say that they 
do them by virtue of “implied powers” in the constitution, or by 
virtue of the powers of a sovereign nation, then the people will 
have to use their powers reserved from the grant to the constitu¬ 
tion to achieve the appropiate remedy. If this republic can 
be turned into the substance of monarchy by the Congress in the 
exercise of its implied powers, how does that body differ from the 
British Parliament which has the power to “change the form of 
government?’ The argument leads to its own refutation; and 
becomes such a libel upon the fathers of the republic, in fact such a 
flat contradiction of what they said that nothing but mendacity 
could employ it. 

But it may be asked why do the imperialists desire thus to over¬ 
throw the constitution? What is the object, the motive, the thing 
to be gained? Let us suppose for a moment that as the inhabitants 
of Louisiana and Florida and other territories, the Porto Ricans 
and Filipinos were conceded by imperialists to be citizens of the 
United States. Suppose imperialists concede,as Chief Justice Marshall 
decided in 1828, speaking of Florida, namely, that the Phillipines 
Islands ceded by the treaty of Paris became a “part of the nation” and 
that the Filipinos will share in the political power when the islands 
are created into states. Suppose the Declaration of Independence, 
which is our charter of civil and political rights, is conceded to be 
over every inch of their soil—what are the consequences? If the 
Filipinos possess liberty they have free access to the republic. If 
they are citizens of the United States they come within the 
language of the Supreme Court: “We are all citizens of the 
United States, and as members of the same community must have 
the right to pass and repass through every part of it without 
interruption as freely as in our own slate.” * Hence, to admit 
that the Filipinos are citizens, is to concede to them the right to 
pass and repass through the United States in the exercise of 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They would then come into 
direct competition with American labor and that sequence would 


32 


sweep the imperialists out of power in every state in the Union at 
this election. Hence the adroit policy of the administration. On 
the other hand, if the Filipinos and Porto Ricans are to be treated 
as citizens and their territory as a part of the United States, then 
no tariff can be interposed between us and them. But if no tariff 
can be interposed, the trade which follows the flag becomes con¬ 
temptible. The monopolies which live and move and having their 
being through the tariff would be crippled by the acquisition of 
these islands. Hence the islands must be treated as dependencies 
and their inhabitants as subjects, for the sole purpose of building 
up trade. The dollar is thus placed before the man. 

It need only be said in conclusion upon this branch of the 
subject, that those who argue that the allegiance of the Filipinos 
was transferred by Spain to the United States, and that the treaty 
of Paris imposed upon them the duties of fealty to the United 
States, that there is no such term as allegiance or fealty under our 
system. These words are of purely feudal origin and were used 
to designate certain service due to tne lord paramount, or the king, 
imposed under a scheme when society was wholly militant. “It is 
to be remembered that whether in its real origin, or in its artificial 
state, allegiance as well as fealty rests upon lands, and it is due to 
persons. Not so with respect to citizenships which has arisen 
from the dissolution of the feudal system, and is a substitute for 
allegiance, corresponding with the new order of things. Allegiance 
and citizenship differ, indeed, in almost every characteristic. 
Citizenship is the effect of compact; allegiance is the offspring of 
power and necessity. Citizenship is a political tie; allegiance is a 
territorial tenure. Citizenship is the charter of equality; allegiance 
is a badge of inferiority. Citizenship is constitutional; allegiance 
is personal. Citizenship is freedom; allegiance is servitude. 
Citizenship is communicable; allegiance is repulsive. Citizenship 
may be relinquished; allegiance is perpetual. 

THE INFLUENCES BACK OF THE POLICY. 

But look at the influences back of this policy and the men who 
declare that the constitution is not in its way and then determine 
whether this talk of an inferior race, and of destiny and duty is not 
the argumentation of kingcraft which Lincoln denounced. Are 

* Crandall vs. Nevada, 6 Wall., 35-49. 

t Talbot vs. Jansen, 3 Dallas, 131. 


33 


the men who brought it about philanthropists or moneychangers? 
Did they say that civilization followed the flag or that trade 
followed the flag? They have told us of the righteous dealing to 
be meted out to the Filipinos if they laid down their arms, and then 
they imposed the colonial policy on the Porto Ricans who never 
took up arms. 

The thirteen original States were once colonies of Great 
Britian. But that form of government became intolerable to us. 
We issued the Declaration of Independence. In that Declaration of 
Independence we furnished to the Porto Ricans and Filipinos the 
terms to denounce us with for perpetrating a colonial government 
upon them. We charged the king with obstructing the adminis¬ 
tration of justice, erecting a -multitude of new oflices, sending 
swarms of officers to eat out our substance, keeping in times of 
peace standing armies'^'without the consent of our legislatures and 
imposing taxes upon us without our consent. These things we are 
now doing ourselves, and the declaration of independence is our 
own indictment and the judgment roll of our own conviction. As 
Lincoln said: “When a man governs himself that is self-govern¬ 
ment, but when he governs himself and another that is despotism.” 
When Douglas in the celebrated debates with Lincoln argued so 
strenuously for popular sovereignty, that is, for the right of 
the people of a territory to manage their local affairs as they 
deemed proper through their legislature, Lincoln replied by saying 
that Judge Douglas was not the originator of popular sovereignt}^, 
that that doctrine was as old as this government and never at any 
time had been denied by anybody and that it was expressly 
declared to the whole world by the fathers in the Declaration of 
Independence. But this doctrine is now denied by the Porto 
Rican bill and by the proposition to govern the Phillipines with a 
government absolutely despotic, giving their local legislatures no 
voice in the management of their own affairs. It was this denial 
and this despotism that drove our fathers to war with Great 
Britian and they never flinched from the principles of the 
Declaration of Independence while they lived. 

These frantic endeavors to get trade, this reckless rush for 
money, evinces nothing else than a species of madness which, in 
the closing days of the 19th century, seems to have infected all 
nations, not excepting the once peaceful republic of the United 
States. Montesquieu said that the spirit of a monarchy was war 

34 


and territorial enlargement, and the spirit of a republic was 
morality and liberty. If the events of the last year do not show 
that the United States has cast out the spirit of a republic and 
become possessed with the spirit of a monarchy it would be 
difficult to conceive what more is needed to demonstrate this most 
obvious fact. England has, in the madness of empire, pushed 
the colonial policy to the utmost, and her greatest intellect, Herbert 
Spencer, after demonstrating that all profitable trade comes to a 
country without a soldier or a ship, or even without inequitable 
treaties wrung from weaker peoples by duress, uses this language: 
“Every new outlet for English goods, kept open at no matter 
what cost, they think valuable. Here is some scrubby little island, 
or wild territory, unhealthy, or barren, or inclement, or uninhabited 
even—which by right of discover}^ conquest or diplomatic 
manoeuvering may be laid hands on. Possession is forthwith 
taken; a high salaried governor is appointed; officials collect 
around him; then follow forts, garrisons, guardships. From these 
bye and bye come quarrels with neighboring peoples, incursions, 
wars; and these again call for more defensive works, more force 
more money, and to all protests against this reckless expenditure the 
reply is ‘consider how it extends our commerce.’ If you grumble at 
the sinking of £800,000 in fortifying Gibraltar and Malta, at the 
outlay of £130,000 a year for the defense of the Ionian Isles, at 
the maintenance of 1,200 soldiers in such a good for nothing place 
as the Bermudas, at the garrisoning of St. Helena, Hong Kong, 
Heligoland and the rest, you are told that all this is needful for the 
protection of our commerce. If you object to the expenditure of 
£110,000 per annum in the government of Ceylon, it is thought 
sufficient answer that Celyon buys manufactures from us to the 
gross value of £240,000 yearly. Any criticism you may pass upon 
the policy of retaining Canada at an annual cost of £800,000 are 
met by the fact that this amounts to only 30 per cent, upon the 
sum which the Canadians spend upon our goods. Should you, 
under the fear that the East India Company’s debt may some day 
be saddled upon the people of England, lament the outlay of 
£7,000,000 over the Afghan war, the sinking of £1,000,000 a year 
in Scinde, and the swallowing up of untold treasure in subjugation 
of the Punjaub there still comes the everlasting excuse of more 
trade. * * * The most profuse expenditure is forgiven, if but 

followed by an insignificant demand for merchandise; even though 


such demand be but for the supply of a garrison’s necessities— 
glass for barrack windows, starch for officers’ shirts and lump 
sugar for the governor’s tables; all of which you shall find care¬ 
fully included in Board of Trade tables and rejoiced over as 
constituting an increase in our exports!” 

IMPERIALISM IS ARMED MONOPOLY. 

The so-called governing classes in England have so prose¬ 
cuted the policy of acquiring colonies for the purpose of trade that 
with the costs of the wars entailed in doing it the national debt has 
grown from £664,263 during the revolution of 1688, to the huge 
sum of £634,435,704 in 1899, with an annual charge of £25,000,- 
000. The home government is obliged to advance about £2,- 
000,000 a year for the defense of the empire, as the colonies incur 
a deficit to that extent yearly. The navy of Great Britain incurred 
in 1898-1899, the charge of £24,733,822, and its army of about 
180,000 men the charge of £22,359,599, and both items mark an 
increase over the charges for the fiscal year 1897-1898. Great 
Britain, too, has banks of issue which are the potent factors in 
government, controlled by the titled classes and money barons, and 
these banks levy further tribute on the people. And for all of these 
unspeakable evils the sole justification is more trade, and more 
stability in finance and the government, which being interpreted 
means more despotism and more of the ‘^serpent doctrine” that the 
governing classes shall eat what the common people of England 
earn. Hamilton established the United States bank in imita¬ 
tion of the bank of England. Jackson destroyed that bank. But 
such a bank involved a special privilege to money, and so the 
national banks were established. These banks rest on United 
States bonds, on the notes of the people which the people would 
like to pay and cancel to avoid the burden of interest. But the 
people are not allowed to do this, for if it were done the banks 
would fall. In July, 1899, there were $229,688,110 of bonds on 
deposit with the United States. These were deposited by banks 
to secure the banks’ issue of paper money to the extent of $205,- 
264,094. Now the people pay interest on the bonds which go to 
the banks and they pay interest on the paper money which goes 
to the banks. The interest on the public debt grew from $37,- 
791,110 in 1897, to $39,896,925 in 1899. 

Social Statics, 191-192. 


36 


As to the tariff, W. M. Springer, for a long lime a dis¬ 
tinguished representative in Congress from Illinois and an authority 
on the tariff question, said that the “average increase in the prices 
of commodities due to the duties imposed on the import of com¬ 
petitive products had not been less than $556,000,000 for every 
twenty years next precedent to 1883, making an aggregate of 
over eleven billions of dollars, not one dollar of which went into 
the national treasury, but came out of the pockets of the people 
and went into the pockets of the interests protected.” When the 
present administration went into power, elected as it has loudly 
claimed on the money question, it proceeded at once to enact a 
high protective tariff, leaving the currency question until the 
session of 1899. Under the l^ingley bill enacted by the present 
administration, in defiance of the verdict at the polls on the money 
question, as they insist, the customs of the government in 1898, 
were considerably less than those under the Wilson bill in 1895- 
1896, showing that the logical operation of a protective tariff is to 
decrease governmental revenues and increase the tribute of the 
people to the protected interests. Then with the tariff for an im¬ 
petus this country saw the most brazen acts of monopoly ever 
witnessed. More trusts have been formed since 1897, than ever 
before in the history of this country, and their total capital stock 
now aggregates the sum of $9,551,184,950. As this is being 
written the newspapers report that the sugar trust has raised the 
price of sugar to six cents a pound, thus taking out of the pockets 
of the people as if by magic the sum of $40,000,000. 

Now there are subsidies and other governmental robberies of 
that character also. But the crowning act of all is colonialism. 
For while the people pay their interest on the bonds peacefully, 
and while the banks collect their interest peacefully, and the trusts 
collect their toll by merely raising prices, and the custom house 
officers collect the customs at the ports, and the protected industries 
exact tribute by advancing prices—none of these money barons can 
get trade in the Phillipines without armies and navies to protect 
them while they do it. So that colonialism is inseparable from 
militarism. Therefore colonialism means immediate despotism 
abroad and ultimate despotism at home. It means revolution in 
our form of government, because a republic cannot own colonies 
or even disconnected territory incapable of being carved into 
sovereign States to be admitted as members of the Union. 

37 


Therefore it means the cancellation of the Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence and the constitution. It means the ultimate moral, intel¬ 
lectual and physical degeneration of the people and their children, 
because the more the people give to the favored classes or to the 
government the less they can do for themselves. Therefore it 
means the downfall of the republic and at least the extinction of 
Americans as a factor in the world’s history. Is not the principle 
‘'equal rights to all and special privileges to none,” the most neces¬ 
sary, the most vital for a government to adhere to without any 
deviation whatever ? 

Although in 1898, the custom receipts were $149,575,062, 
and although there were special receipts amounting to $83,602,- 
501, besides large internal revenue receipts due to the war tax, 
there was a deficit of $38,047,247. In 1899, receipts from 
customs were $206,128,149, and there were other receipts amount¬ 
ing to $34,716,730, besides large war tax receipts, yet there was a 
deficit of $89,111,559. The charges of the war department soared 
from about forty-nine million dollars in 1897 to nearly 230 million 
dollars in 1899, charges of the navy department soared 

from about thirt3'-four million dollars in 1897 to nearly sixty-four 
million dollars in 1899. The total expenses of the government 
bounded up from $365,774,159 in 1897 to $605,072,179 in 1899. 

How much further can this course be carried ? It has but 
one object, the acquisition of money by favored classes. It can 
have but one result, the impoverishment of the people. 

English lories like Southey argued in the beginning of this 
century that the French revolution was produced by the writings 
of Rousseau, and the encyclopaedists. But Lord Byron truly said 
that the French revolution was produced by acts on the part of the 
government, and not by writings against it. The people were 
driven to that point of desperation by special privilege and taxa¬ 
tion where they could neither give nor take more. The same 
course of events has occurred so often in the past and is so well 
authenticated in history that nothing short of blind lust for money 
Can prevent a man of sound mind from foreseeing its result. 
“First freedom and then glory; when that fails, wealth, vice, cor¬ 
ruption, death.” 

Our fathers placed the constitution between the people and 
the agents of government in order to secure the blessings of 
liberty to themselves and their posterity. But when the constitu- 

38 


tion is destroyed there will then be the government on one side 
and the governed on the other and the republic will be dead. 

The Republican party commenced its career by freeing* 
4,000,000 black men. This it did, composed as it was then of 
Jeffersonian Democrats, Liberty-men, Free Soilers, Old-line 
Whigs and Hamiltonians. Now the Hamiltonians have the 
ascendancy and the Republican party has crowned its career by 
subjugating 10,000,000 brown men to secure the trade of the 
Orient. When President McKinley declared that trade follows 
the flag, and when the Porto Rican law decreed that the constitu¬ 
tion does not follow the flag the Republican party placed the 
dollar before the man. It became then an organized army 
enforcing the demands of commercialism. Abraham Lincoln gave 
the nation a new birth of freedom in i860; but will the people be 
inspired to increased devotion to the cause of liberty if they listen 
to William McKinley in 1900. 

Let us believe that these problems will be solved in the terms 
of liberty and of the charters of our government. Let us believe 
with Lincoln: “The authors of the Declaration of Independence 
meant it to be, as, thank God, it is now proving itself a stumbling 
block to all those who, in after times, might seek to turn a 
free people back into the hateful paths of despotism, They knew 
the proneness of prosperity to breed tyrants and they meant when 
such should re-appear in this fair land and commence their 
vocation they should And left for them at least one hard nut 
to crack.” * 

The badge of monopoly is upon the tariff, the gold standard, 
the national banks, the trusts and colonialism, and when monopoly 
is destroyed equal rights in government will resume their sway 
and the golden rule in morals will receive the impetus of united 
millions. 

*Chicag-o Speech, July 10th, 1858. 












o V 


\k* J' 






y^/jt^- %r 


'o ^ k'^ ,0 



.o"^ 0 

^ • * 

o' f 

r O ^ 

O. ^ 





O ^ K 


. <P vP 

■* -> 


^o K . 

j> 

A" V ' 

^ ^ c*' .V ^ 

. /% /\ \^;’ 

* * ^ O ^ A .0 O * ft S ^ ^A- 

^ ^ a^J7??Zi^ *' V^ U * . O 










* o > 


O ^ ’ 

* .K o ^ 

•aP*^ s ® \^ p '' • o<, C> <, 

V' SliS " ^ -gP ‘^(A^sA'' 


» « 


% /\ 

'>* v'^ ’ ^> 4 




y» 





y 


t. 

iO 



.0^ "^o 


® -(j^ ^ 

' !v” 

* <l" 

® “ ° ^ ^ 


-i.'^ A, ^ ^ /< 

^ 0^ ° 


V 0 !^ 



'o • A '‘ . 0 




V . 

'■ 

^ .0^ '^o 

0°'^ .‘J4^>.% 


o V 

>y^ - 

^ A 

C'. .0 «*••'* ,> 























A 


t f e 



o 'V ^ 

* ^ 


-9 


^ •* 



< O 

o ^ ^ 

o • A '* .0 O ' 


sT 


* . , -I * ^0 *' oTo ’ O *' • , 1 * ’ ^0" ^ J, „ 0 

• rv\\\^v//A tp o 





^0 %. .y o ^ 

ip ’•■'• ^° '^s^ 

=>>. V . ' • ”- o. 

. V » .(A^^A '<^- * 'K^ A V 


•* ■ 

jy \D 





•0 < 


v;^ : 

. o'^ ^ "" 

*' ^ / ■> * ^0 



«" o 


”. ■^o ^ 


h. .V ,‘ 


>v - 

'V ^ 




, ^ , 

•/ %‘*rr,-’^o 

■> ,'•■>, ^cv .0^ ‘iVL'-, 

'^o A ^ Qlfi® • ^ ^ 

’■> ‘°WWWc 

<v 'o.*- ,G' '^o, A 'o,*'* 0 ^ 

i- ' " ,» 0^ 0 ° “ ® ■» **•'*■» c ® " ® 


-G *■ 


<» A 

>» ^ - W/ 




« V* 0 ^ 


O 


o ^ 

*' » N ° ^ 



ifl ^y‘ 





4 o 1 

^oho"^ ^ • / •> 




^ Aa 



^ V ^ 

■ A^ *' 
vA • 



• A ^r\ •* 

* <y * 

* /y ^ '>» 



'J'^ 


^V A. <^ >o,*'* , 0 ^ s" a 

I I a r\' 0^0 tG' O •■ ^ * 


p.^AUG 59 

N. MAN^ESTER. 


■^- 0 ^ 



U* 

o ^ > 



INDIANA 


^ \jfrt!^ITIMk/ N.ih 


» 

\0 

^ ^ ^ lA 

o ^ 3 r^ 0> 

»"»’ <?-' % "'■ ,. ■^^•“”« 

v' ,'•”, C_ _■'' •'• 



/ V ^ ^ 

















































